Case information

Criminal law — Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Search and seizure — Evidence — Blood samples — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal perpetuated Superior Court’s error by reviewing trial judge’s assessment of facts in absence of palpable and overriding error — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that there was no unreasonable seizure within meaning of s. 8 of Charter — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that blood samples had always remained in hospital’s possession and under its control after being sealed — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that Constable Lachance had acted in accordance with legal framework established by Criminal Code.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

On June 10, 2017, the applicant, Nadia Martin, was involved in a motor vehicle accident. She was arrested at the scene for impaired driving and taken by ambulance to a hospital. The physician told the police officers, who wanted blood samples from the applicant, that she was not in any condition to validly consent to having blood drawn. When a nurse took blood samples from the applicant, Constable Lachance asked the nurse for samples from the vials. The samples were sealed, identified with the applicant’s name and placed in a locked refrigerator at the hospital. Four days after the event, a search warrant was issued and Constable Lachance seized the samples, which were then analyzed to determine the applicant’s blood alcohol level.

At her trial for driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, the applicant moved to exclude the blood sample evidence. The trial judge granted the motion and excluded the blood sample evidence, and the applicant was acquitted. The Superior Court granted the motion brought by the prosecution, found the samples admissible and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.